Subscribe To

Subscribe via email

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Last week, Rabbi David Starr posted this comment:

"A note to all of you elitist minyanaires out there: what would it mean for you to try to fix problematic shuls rather than forming affinity groups just for folks like you?"

This is a challenge often made to Indy minyanim. The premise is that there are lots of existing, established institutions which are underperforming, and that young Jews should be working to transform them to meet all of the religious and social needs that are currently not being met rather than deepening their crisis by investing resources in new institutions.

If the rationale is that we should support these struggling institutions because they are there, it is not compelling. Few of us believe in sustaining ineffectual institutions for their own sake – for an extreme formulation of this attitude, see Elie Kaunfer's new book. So let's focus on the idea that we can actually accomplish more by working through existing institutions than we can on our own.

Elie argues that, by not being tied down to real estate, Independent Minyanim can be nimble, have low overhead, and focus on their primary mission. This idea is attractive but has definite limits. Many have been limited by challenges of space. There is no room for proper children's programming, or the space is not always available. There is also a severe limit to resources – organizing the range of offerings that its constituency needs demands much more money and time than a lay-led, nomadic minyan can invest. These are things that established shuls often have in abundance. And we need shuls to get involved with because no place will have the concentration of like-minded people we have on the Upper West Side of NY, Dupont Circle in DC, etc. Creating a symbiotic relationship should be both obvious and easy.

Why isn't it? Here are some key reasons:

Most shuls that want to be "reinvigorated" actually want an influx of young people to enable them to keep doing what they have always done. They do not want experiment with new models of prayer or programming. This is especially the case in struggling shuls whose membership tends to be older and more deeply attached to "the way things have been". But this culture is precisely what needs to be changed in order to bring in new life. Even where the leadership promises that they are open to new ideas, change is in reality extremely slow and laborious.

In many shuls, the religious needs of the membership and of young observant families barely overlap. At one shul, there is little integration between the populations despite years of joint programming, mostly because they have little in common. Another has wonderful children's programming which minyan families avoid because it is full of shabbat violations.

Some of the things Indy minyaners find most onerous are built into the culture of many shuls. Five different special blessings for various celebrations. Bnai Mitzva being given such prominence that the rest of davening feels like an afterthought. Rabbis who conduct and control the flow of services from up on the bimah, even in shuls with an educated membership who don't need it. Hazzanim who discourage participation rather than encouraging it. And so forth.

I do not speak for everyone, but here is my understanding:

We would love to find shuls who would welcome us and where we could be part of revitalizing a community rather than starting a new one. Most of us are willing to make significant compromises to make that possible. We are also willing to invest in making that happen. But it can only happen in places where the shul and shul leadership are willing to fully understand what we are looking for and what it would mean to cultivate this kind of culture. I don't know KI in Brookline (Rabbi Starr's example), but I know that its rabbi is someone who understands and embraces that culture. It is certainly the right kind of place to start.

37 comments:

The funny thing is that many synagogues are demographically diverse, but intellectually or ideologically homogeneous. Indie minyans, on the other hand, are often the exact opposite: demographically homogeneous and ideologically diverse.

I strongly disagree with you. You're throwing around phrases like "most shuls" without much support. I'm sure some shuls fit this description. I'll freely admit I have no clue if it's most, but I doubt you have any serious evidence to support your assumption.

I can speak for my parents' dying 50+ year-old synagogue that they've had a series of young rabbis and they've been very welcoming to changing various aspects of their service and community (of course, with some people griping). Unfortunately, they're in the suburbs were the next generations don't want to live. Just because they can't fight demography, doesn't mean they inflexible. New York as a whole is a lousy frame of reference because both synagogues and minyanim have the ability to be inflexible since they only need to attract a small fraction of the total Jewish population to create a stable community. This isn't true anywhere else in the country.

From my own experience as someone in the indy minyan age range who has been on the board of one synagogue and an active leader in another, it is difficult to change long-time practice, but it's possible. If a synagogue values more than money from its congregants, it will value people who come in and start contributing their energy. You don't want to change what makes a community special to many long-term active members, but, in my experience, those are rarely the actual points of old/new conflict. I've also seen the conflicts over ideas within each generation are often larger than the cross-generation conflicts.

For your benefits of indy minyanim, the flexibility and speed of creation is wonderful, but what does that mean 10 or 20 years from now. You're going to have your own generation of stubborn people who don't want the next generation to change things or you'll have new structures for each generation. For all the inefficiencies and in-flexibilities owning a building, this seems more inefficient and would divide Jews completely by generations. Even if a synagogue as minimal interactions between generations, isn't that better than no interactions?

Dan - One of the things I omitted here because it was in my first post is that 85% of Conservative shuls aren't even in this conversation because they are built in places where observant families can't practically live - they were built without any consideration for people walking to shul. As for the rest, yes, it is possible to work together, and I am the FIRST to say that it's the direction we have to go in because we NEED generational diversity and communal longevity. My point is that it can only work when everyone acknowledges powerful forces of inertia that work against it. It's also why I think we need to focus on making this happen in the few places that have the real potential to succeed, and then go from there.

I think you're mixing up related issues. My parents live a flat 1.2 miles from their synagogue with sidewalks everywhere. Even at it's peak, most lived in that range. I now typically walk 1.5 miles to synagogue. Walk-ability is one of many issues, but particularly in pre-1970 suburbs, the issue is not whether a shomer shabbat community could live in walking distance. From my perspective, suburbia is an issue because people our age prefer being able to walk more places in general and would rather not have 1h+ commutes to work.

When I have a conversation with a rabbi who wants to bring young families into a shul, the first thing I ask myself is, is this a place I could possibly convince five young, observant families to move to? If I can't, it makes no difference WHY that is the case. In part it's just that no one is choosing to move to smaller cities.

My concern is that your lack of interest in "why" seems to be expressed by giving many different "whys" without much evidence supporting them. I guess my difference of opinion is that I think WHY is vital to understanding what happens next and misinformation created by some of these assumptions harms the chances of reaching this understanding. If we can identify "whys" that are changeable, that can make a world of difference.

I'll also note that not all dynamic, exciting, indy minyanim are populated primarily by people who are observant using whatever your definition is or who walk to synagogue. Since that is your community, you're probably not the right person for these rabbis to ask regarding bringing young families to shul, but perhaps you can guide them to someone who can help them.

Anyway, I'm being a bit critical here, but I'm finding this an interesting and hopefully constructive discussion.

The original comment (which I can't find - where was it posted?) says:A note to all of you elitist minyanaires out there:

Let's unpack the word "elitist" here (and not just here, of course - it's a common charge against independent minyanim). Are minyanim elitist because they charge four-figure membership dues? Oh wait, that's synagogues; most independent minyanim founded in the last decade don't even have membership. Are minyanim elitist because they restrict ritual leadership to ordained clergy? Oh wait, that's (some but not all) synagogues again. Are minyanim elitist because they grant prominence to the people who make the largest donations? Oh wait, that's all the other Jewish institutions.

It might be the case that minyanim have a higher average level of Jewish education than other Jewish communities (it's hard to say, because such claims are backed up with problematic methodology), but even if it is, we shouldn't confuse "elite" with "elitist". Minyanim are only elitist if they're trying to keep non-"elite" people away, and every minyan I'm familiar with (at least of the more recent generation) would say that their doors are open to anyone who wants to be there. If not everyone is there, it's because not everyone wants to be there.

what would it mean for you to try to fix problematic shuls

How many shuls would actually identify themselves as "problematic" (beyond, as Josh said, wishing they had more people "to keep doing what they have always done")? I would suspect that most shuls are generally happy the way they are (even if some are more open to tweaking than others), and the ones that actually consider themselves "problematic" are so far from fixable that they would have to be gutted and started from scratch.

Many more shuls may be considered "problematic" by people who don't go there, but that's why those people don't go there. If "minyanaires" are forming independent minyanim outside of the shuls rather than plotting a hostile takeover of the shuls, that's not a sign of elitism, but of respect for diversity: they recognize that the shuls are right for some people, just not for them.

rather than forming affinity groups just for folks like you?

As I have discussed, independent minyanim are much more diverse than many outsiders (and even many insiders) realize; often the only thing that their participants have in common is the minyan itself. But if that's enough to brand them all as "folks like you", then synagogues could equally be branded as "affinity groups just for folks like you" -- after all, synagogues are only for people who go to synagogues.

Dan writes:I'll also note that not all dynamic, exciting, indy minyanim are populated primarily by people who are observant using whatever your definition is or who walk to synagogue.

This is a very important point too. And the flip side is that there are people who are "observant" by Josh's definition and walk to synagogue, AND prefer a top-down ritual style, are resistant to institutional change, etc. There are major cultural differences in play here, leading to different styles of Jewish communities, but these differences don't line up perfectly with any particular form of "observance".

BZ, I think I mostly agree with you. It's possible to find dozens of exceptions to the rule for pretty much any synagogue or minyan. These exceptions blur the line between indy minyanim and synagogues and are useful stufy for anyone seriously trying to understand what going to happen. Focusing on the stereotypes of each gets us nowhere.

(I'm also getting sick of Steven M Cohen surveys. I'm glad someone is doing this type of thing, and his surveys are usually better than nothing, but I have no clue how "A Steven M Cohen Survey" (TM) ever came to be the stamp of survey perfection in the Jewish community.)

This does bring up a related topic of why I think indy minyanim are independent. Put very simply, the movements have not given them reasons they should join. For many minyanim, I see few theological reasons that prevent joining, but there are huge reasons relating to organizational philosophy. For USCJ, the organization I know best, giving grants to indy minyanim and encouraging synagogues to give them space is nice, but it's treating minyanim like charity cases instead of community members. I want to see a realistic dues policy for affiliation that makes sense for minyanim (apply it to synagogues while they're at it). I want to see the movements figure out what real benefits they can give to affiliated minyanim (for that matter, what real benefits they give to synagogues). I want to see minyan leaders as formal parts of the movement decision making processes and not just the target audience.

BZ, The one place I think I disagree with you, is on the definition of a problematic shul. A synagogue that doesn't have the money to keep doing what it's been doing is problematic. A synagogue without children is problematic and most synagogues are aware if that have these problems. The better ones are thinking if they can do change anything to fix the problems and are far from beyond hope.

For example, there's a synagogue I know in a semi-urban area that was on the verge of closing 15-20 years ago because the demographics had pushed a few generations away. The semi-urban area got some investment, the synagogue got a new rabbi, younger Jews moved in, they were given leadership positions, and the synagogue now has 300+ families spanning generations (though still with problem they are trying to fix). There was no hostile take-over, but it did require listening to new voices and being willing to change.

Dan writes:For many minyanim, I see few theological reasons that prevent joining, but there are huge reasons relating to organizational philosophy.

Most independent minyanim haven't taken any official theological positions; when they take stances, it's operational, about what they do, not about why they do it. The constellations of practice in some independent minyanim are compatible with the theological positions of some movements, but compatible with other theological positions as well, and keeping it vague helps the minyanim attract ideologically diverse populations. While affiliating or identifying with a movement wouldn't force dissenters to leave, it would make the statement that some positions are officially sanctioned and others aren't.

The question of what congregations get for their movement dues is an important one, but even setting aside the issue of dues, it costs nothing for a community to label itself as "Conservative", "Reform", etc. (those labels aren't trademarked, so the movements can't sue), yet independent minyanim overwhelmingly still choose not to, in part for these reasons.

BZ, The one place I think I disagree with you, is on the definition of a problematic shul. A synagogue that doesn't have the money to keep doing what it's been doing is problematic. A synagogue without children is problematic and most synagogues are aware if that have these problems.

Ok, i'm not sure we're disagreeing; those examples are just an extension of what Josh and I were both saying. Let's say a synagogue has been doing A, and is now lacking the resources (money, adults, children, etc.) to do A effectively. Meanwhile, an independent minyan is doing B. Insofar as the synagogue considers itself problematic, it's because it's not able to do A. But the minyan people consider the synagogue problematic because it's not doing B, and would continue to consider the synagogue problematic even if it were to do A better, because A isn't B. So there's no incentive for the minyan people to contribute the resources (financial and/or human) to help the synagogue do A, if they're actually looking for B.

I get what you're saying, but the base assumption is that at any point in time, the members of a synagogue are fairly united in opinion.In reality, a synagogue is doing A,B,C,D,&E. There's a sizable group in the congregation that hates A, is happy with B,C,&D, doesn't care about E and really wants the synagogue to do F&G. (add another few factions for every family that joins the synagogue). I've never seen a place where a synagogue isn't rethinking what it does or doesn't do. I'll define a problem as something that is forcing a change rather than changes happening through an unpressured, deliberative process.

When you throw an indy minyan into the picture, it does B,X,Y,&Z and hates C (again with its own factions). The blocking point is not that they have different goals, but if the synagogue is strongly in support of C. For example, the synagogue that only wants a single service at a time with a professional cantor who wishes, he/she was an opera soloist while the core of the minyan is lay-led davening with loud congregational voices. These impassible divides exist, but are very far from universal.

Just like BZ notes the issue is realizing A ~= B, it's sometimes useful to sit, identify what A & B are, and figure out how valuable A and B are to each. Perhaps some congregational rabbis are coming to you to find this out, but they are people who do not know how to ask.

On the movement affiliation question, I'm not sure I buy BZ's argument. There are very few minyanim that truly cross movement boundaries. At least from the minyans I've seen, the discussions on what is or is not allowed don't span the boundaries of where the Reform and Conservative movement sanction stuff.

Perhaps there is a benefit on the Orthodox side, where people raised in that movement would feel uncomfortable going something that breaches standard modern Orthodox practice if it is labeled as another movement, but are comfortable going to something with no affiliation.

At least for the Conservative movement, the big issue is matralineal descent, what a non-Jew can do in a service & as a community leader. The only other USCJ synagogue affiliation requirements are: have a mara d'atra, have shomer shabbat events as defined by the mara d'atra, and, if there's a kitchen it must be kosher as defined by the mara d'atra. The mara d'atra requirement IS huge, but it has little to do with whether a group is willing to call itself conservative and it's something they'll need to address if they seriously want to engage and welcome many indy minyanim.

I think the bigger issue is branding. Through years of incompetent management, there's a real benefit to not linking yourself to that management either formally or informally. In the end, it's all cost/benefit. If a movement showed that it really understood the indy minyan movement figured out real benefits, some minyanim would affiliate (either formally or informally). We're still far from that point.

Dan writes:There are very few minyanim that truly cross movement boundaries. At least from the minyans I've seen, the discussions on what is or is not allowed don't span the boundaries of where the Reform and Conservative movement sanction stuff.

Examples include minyanim like Kol Zimrah (all the time) and Tikkun Leil Shabbat (half the time), which combine full Hebrew liturgy and musical instruments. Technically neither of these practices are prohibited by either movement, but in reality, these minyanim would be extreme outliers in either movement.

But anyway, communal practice isn't what I was talking about; I was talking about individual practice (i.e. what people do when they're not at the minyan) and ideology. For example, the Conservative movement says that it is forbidden to do X on Shabbat. Most members of Conservative synagogues do X anyway, but they consider themselves "less observant" or "not shomer shabbat" when they do it. Most independent minyanim don't take any official stance on whether or not X is forbidden on Shabbat (even if they structure all their own programs to be compatible with not doing X). Another example is that different people may support the same communal practice for different reasons (e.g. full k'riah), and so a minyan that includes that practice can include all those people, since the minyan only formalizes the practice, not an official reason behind it. Identifying with a movement (and its ideology) means narrowing the set of possible reasons.

Dan writes:Perhaps there is a benefit on the Orthodox side, where people raised in that movement would feel uncomfortable going something that breaches standard modern Orthodox practice if it is labeled as another movement, but are comfortable going to something with no affiliation.

This is definitely true. But it's true for other movements too. Speaking for myself, having grown up in the Reform movement (and even though I'm now married to a JTS-ordained rabbi), while I wouldn't refuse to set foot (or even participate actively) in something labeled "Conservative", this label would (ceteris paribus) decrease my sense of belonging and ownership in the community. In college, I went to the Conservative minyan almost every Shabbat morning and frequently for weekday minyan (the Reform minyan met only on Friday nights), but didn't consider myself part of the minyan and didn't feel empowered to state my opinions on minyan matters (since I felt like my opinions were outside of the minyan's self-defined boundaries). I would have felt differently if the minyan had had a different name.

On the flip side, the "Reform" label is a major turnoff for people who didn't come from the Reform movement (and many people who did too). Even if many independent minyan participants make halachic decisions in accordance with the Reform principle of informed autonomy (educating themselves in the sources and making their own decisions rather than deferring to a mara d'atra or poseik), they associate "Reform" with the cultural traits of real-world Reform congregations rather than with the Reform movement's official ideology.

At least for the Conservative movement, the big issue is matralineal descent, what a non-Jew can do in a service & as a community leader. The only other USCJ synagogue affiliation requirements are: have a mara d'atra, have shomer shabbat events as defined by the mara d'atra, and, if there's a kitchen it must be kosher as defined by the mara d'atra.

While these aren't "requirements" in the same way, Conservative self-identification also includes granting a position of authority to the decisions of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (even if individual congregants and maraya d'atraya aren't bound by these decisions), and a sense of movement identity that defines itself in direct opposition to the other denominations.

In the end, it's all cost/benefit.

I agree, and this includes not only the (monetary) costs and (supposedly tangible, but too small) benefits of movement affiliation, but also the (intangible) costs and (intangible, and too small) benefits of labeling.

Examples include minyanim like Kol Zimrah (all the time) and Tikkun Leil Shabbat (half the time), which combine full Hebrew liturgy and musical instruments. Technically neither of these practices are prohibited by either movement, but in reality, these minyanim would be extreme outliers in either movement.

I haven't been to either of the two you've listed, but congregations like the very huge, USCJ affiliated Beth Am in LA have an electric organ on the bima and used it heavily the one time I attended on a Shabbat morning and I'm fairly sure they did full liturgy (don't remember what they did regarding full/triennial k'riah & musaf repetition).The even bigger USCJ affiliated Temple Sinai, also in LA has a "Friday Night Live" program that also uses significant instrumentation (never been & don't know how full it is). This model is used other places.These are unquestionably two of the biggest synagogues in the entire USCJ and I'm sure there are other, similar examples. I don't think anything done at them could be considered an extreme outlier in the Conservative movement.

I'm know TLS and Kol Zimrah do things very differently than those places, but I doubt they're halachically very different.

But anyway, communal practice isn't what I was talking about; I was talking about individual practice (i.e. what people do when they're not at the minyan) and ideology.

This is a very interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or another. Do people who go indy minyanim or synagogues that are stricter in observance than their personally practice really think of themselves differently? I've met people at both who call themselves "less observant" or "not shomer shabbat." Is there any evidence that the bar of entry any lower at indy minyanim?

Your point on your college Conservative minyan is interesting. I'm curious how much is the Conservative label and how much was you weren't at a point where you were confident in your own knowledge? If the leadership of an indy minyan has a very high level of observance (whatever that means) and knowledge, how often does a less knowledgable person feel ownership and join the leadership? This is an issue beyond naming.

Going back to the original post, I see a lot of this as branding and outside perceptions of an organization. Whether it's based on some truth or utterly false, the indy minyan movement has outsiders thinking they're elitist. Just like the big movements have some negative branding stuck to them, is this going to stick to the indy minyanim?

I also definitely agree that cost/benefit is more than money. In fact, I think, for the indy minyanim, time cost is more significant than money. If a minyan were to invent it's limited energy in being a part of a movement, what would it get in return? What could it help build?

Dan writes:Do people who go indy minyanim or synagogues that are stricter in observance than their personally practice really think of themselves differently?

I should clarify that I was talking about denominational vs. nondenominational communities, not about minyanim vs. synagogues. (These two dichotomies are, of course, strongly correlated, but are not the same.)

Your point on your college Conservative minyan is interesting. I'm curious how much is the Conservative label and how much was you weren't at a point where you were confident in your own knowledge? If the leadership of an indy minyan has a very high level of observance (whatever that means) and knowledge, how often does a less knowledgable person feel ownership and join the leadership?

Gaps in knowledge and confidence are an important issue, but that's not what was going on in my case. At least by the second half of college, I think I was as knowledgeable as anyone there, and understood all the issues just fine. I felt like my opinions weren't admissible because they weren't coming from a "Conservative" perspective, even if the tachlis conclusions happened to concur with the opinions of some other people who were coming from such a perspective (just like I didn't think it would be appropriate for an Orthodox person to come along and suggest that the minyan shouldn't be egalitarian, even though there are non-egalitarian Conservative congregations, so that suggestion would be within the range of Conservative practice).

I should clarify that I was talking about denominational vs. nondenominational communities, not about minyanim vs. synagogues.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it makes a difference in this case. Every community has communal standards of practice. In some cases, members of the community have personal observances are "less stringent" than those standards. Do those people's vision of self differ depending on whether the community associates itself with a denomination or not? I have no clue, but I've seen no studies making me think anyone else has a clue either.

On the college minyan question, I see the issue of an Orthodox member suggesting a non-egal service to a Conservative labeled community to be an issue beyond the denomination issue. Does the person not suggest this because the person is Orthodox and the community is Conservative or because the Orthodox person knows the individuals of the community would have no interest in a non-egal service. As another example, would someone decide not to suggest bringing in guitars and drums because the community is Conservative or because the community members seem to be happy with a non-instrumental service? In both cases, if there was a subpopulation that might be interested in these changes, I suspect they would have been brought up. (i.e. the movement stereotypes might have relevance, but the opinions of the individuals that make up the community are primary)

As for my own college experience we had Orthodox & Conservative minyanim, but neither was big enough to have internal arguments over practice. In fact they were sufficiently small enough that when neither got a Shabbat morning minyan, there would be the not infrequent negotiations for Orthodox women who were willing to be counted in the Conservative minyan in exchange for Conservative men who were willing to be counted in the Orthodox minyan. I still won't think too hard about theological philosophy behind this, but it gave me a healthy dose of pragmatism.

No. Not every community has communal standards on every element of practice. Many nondenominational communities in particular (including independent minyanim, but also some independent synagogues) establish standards only for the issues for which they see a need to establish standards.

I'll use Segulah as an example, since that's the minyan that I'm most involved with now, but this applies to many other communities too:

Segulah's policy is that all Jewish adults count towards a minyan. Segulah's practice is that Segulah services include musaf and include An'im Zemirot, but Segulah has taken no stance on whether either of these are obligatory. All Segulah potlucks are vegetarian, but Segulah has taken no stance on whether Jews must be vegetarian all the time. All Segulah services take place in walking distance of a core neighborhood, but Segulah has taken no stance on whether it is permissible to drive or take public transportation on Shabbat. Segulah services do not include musical instruments, but Segulah has taken no stance on whether it is permissible to play instruments on Shabbat (or any day of the week, since the destruction of the Temple). Segulah has never met on yom tov, and has taken no stance on whether yom tov has 1 or 2 days. Segulah has never ordained any rabbis, and has taken no stance on who may be ordained as a rabbi. Segulah has taken no stances on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, biblical authorship, health care reform, mikvaot, or kitniyot. Segulah has expressed enthusiasm for the Purple Line and for ice cream.

Any given denominationally affiliated congregation might or might not have taken stances on any of these issues, but if the denominational movement has taken a stance, then the movement's stance is generally assumed to be "incorporated by reference" by its affiliated congregations through their affiliation, unless they've explicitly taken a contrary stance. (Maybe denominational affiliation would be more attractive if this assumption were not present...)

In the state of nature, independent congregations start with a tabula rasa (with no positions on anything until they establish positions), and affiliated congregations start (or are assumed to start) with the standards and norms of their movement.

Not sure if BZ is still reading this, but I figured I'd comment. I could make a similar list to Segulah's for every synagogue I've been part of. I'll note that for some of the things on the list Segulah hasn't taken a stance because the issue hasn't arisen.

For example, all Jewish adults count towards a minyan, but how does Segulah define Jew and how one becomes a Jew? If someone walks off the street and says they're calling themselves Jewish today, can they count as part of the minyan? Probably not, but, at some point, the community might need to set thresholds that will welcome some people and alienate others.

Are other issues like 2nd day chagim not defined as an explicit decision or because the minyan hasn't gotten around to organizing events for holidays? Is this is non-decision or a postponed decision?

At least for Reconstructionist, Reform, and Conservative, there are huge ranges of stances within each movement. As the current, classic example, in Conservative Judaism one can believe that homosexual marriages can be formalized by rabbis or that homosexuality is a sin and one should seek "repairative" therapy (the latter bothers me even to write). As I mentioned above, the actual things that define a Conservative synagogue are actually very limited and don't touch anything in your Segulah list.

That said, the real issue is who is making assumptions and why. If your assumptions about affiliated synagogues are wide-spread, this is relates to branding and advertising, not actual practice. That is something the movements could actually change if they wanted to.

As an example, a few years ago, USCJ got into it's head that it should take a more active role in politics. It sent out some press releases endorsing 2 nominations from President Bush. See: http://www.uscj.org/cgi-bin/accessible.pl?Letter_to_Arlen_Spec6782.htmlThe other, even more incompetently written, endorsement of John Bolton for UN ambassador seems to have been wiped from the USCJ website and their person in charge of policy soon left that job. You can dig up some of the responses to this, but there was very strong push back form synagogues that didn't want to be linked to the endorsement and, despite holding on to the right to issue such endorsements, USCJ hasn't done so since. This is an example of really bad branding and the type of things a central organization does to feed incorrect assumptions about synagogues.

I'll note that for some of the things on the list Segulah hasn't taken a stance because the issue hasn't arisen.

That may be the case for issues of communal practice that could arise at some point in the future, but not for issues of ideology or individual practice (on which a community doesn't ever have to take a position unless it chooses to).

For example, all Jewish adults count towards a minyan, but how does Segulah define Jew and how one becomes a Jew?

As you correctly surmise, this question hasn't come up.

Are other issues like 2nd day chagim not defined as an explicit decision or because the minyan hasn't gotten around to organizing events for holidays? Is this is non-decision or a postponed decision?

I'm not sure there's such a clear-cut difference. On the one hand, yes, there haven't been any yom tov services/events yet, and if there were, the minyan might (depending on which holiday) have to either take a stand on the number of days or find a creative way to more explicitly not take a stand. On the other hand, there are minyanim that go for years without ever holding yom tov services/events (and therefore taking a stand).

It sent out some press releases endorsing 2 nominations from President Bush. See: http://www.uscj.org/cgi-bin/accessible.pl?Letter_to_Arlen_Spec6782.htmlThe other, even more incompetently written, endorsement of John Bolton for UN ambassador seems to have been wiped from the USCJ website and their person in charge of policy soon left that job.

It was quite awful. If I had to sum up a lot of my point of view in this conversation, I'd say that there are fewer differences between the indy minyanim and synagogues/movements, but, through consistently incompetent actions like this one they create bad assumptions that push people away. Competent management could go a long way.

Did any member congregations publicly distance themselves from this?

I think some congregations/congregants wrote their congress-people. From my understanding, there were very active complaints on both the synagogue presidents' listserv and the RA rabbis' listserv. I don't know of any synagogue that did anything more publicly. I have an amusing connection with this story that I can tell you some time. I have commitments preventing me from attending the next Segulah service (you keep scheduling it on the same weeks as Tot Shabbat), but we're still interested in hosting.

in reality, a synagogue is doing A,B,C,D,&E. There's a sizable group in the congregation that hates A, is happy with B,C,&D, doesn't care about E and really wants the synagogue to do F&G.

Too many synagogues I have encountered operate under the assumption that there should be a unified voice of the synagogue, and one central service that pleases everyone. While they may have differing views on what A,B,C, etc are, they often believe strongly that one service is best for the community. Sometimes there are youth services or learners services, but these are means to transition into the community.

Independent minyanim do not think that the "one service that pleases everyone is a good model. Minyanim might be happier to meet in a synagogue that was happy to let A, B, C etc all happen under its roof, allowing multiple modes of worship and other events. Many of the indie minyan attendees experienced this framework in their college hillel, and while there can be some downsides, these are people that prefer to have a plurality of options rather than creating artificial uniformity. If the synagogue likes doing A, but is having trouble doing A, the minyan goers dont want to force people to stop doing A if they find it to be a meaningful Jewish practice. And since minyan goers themselves are not put off by small gatherings (wow! 20 people came to our rooftop service!) they are not deeply troubled by a synagogue that currently gets a small number of attendees. They would rather have the synagogue open up its other rooms to let other people do B or C, or whatever works. B may happen once a month, or only on rosh hodesh, or only on hanukkah. it doesnt matter, so long as B happens as frequently as people want B to happen.

Some of the resistance comes not only from synagogues desire to attract people to help them continue to do A, but it also comes from the synagogues desire to keep their institutional message intact, whether the message is unique to the synagogue or is the message of the movement. I dont think synagogues will have to compromise this goal of theirs in order to welcome minyanim. Synagogues could announce that "Z, an independent minyan, will be using the following room every saturday morning from 9-12. For more information about Z, feel free to check out their website. Z is not affiliated with our shul, and we take no stance on their programming. If you have any questions, please contact ______ (at the synagogue) or _______ at Z."

A shul may chose to further enforse the minyan and encourage their congregants to check it out, or further distance itself from the minyan as it sees appropriate (eg. "Z uses instruments on shabbat, which is not part of our synagogue's understanding of appropriate shabbat practice" or "Z is not an egalitarian congregation, which is contrary to this synagogue's practice.") I dont think minyanim want to censor synagogue speech.

Bottom line: minyan goers do not want to attend services they are not interested in, nor do they want to take over shuls by forcing congregants to change the modes of prayer that make them happy. They would rather see a plethora of services. In this model, only good can come from synagogues moving away from the "one service for all" model.

MS,Like I've said above, I agree that almost everything you say exists, but I'll caution against overgeneralizing. There are also many synagogues that have welcomed multiple services. For that matter, I'd question how often (in the past 5 years) a group of new people came to a synagogue said they wanted to use space for an indy minyan and were rejected or given impossible requirements. I'm sure it's happened, but, I'd be surprised if it's a frequent scenario. Don't let assumptions of synagogues get in the way of forging mutually-beneficial connections.

The one place I might strongly disagree with you is:Sometimes there are youth services or learners services, but these are means to transition into the community.

Perhaps you might be using the word "community" to refer to the main service, but I think it's an absolutely reasonable goal to encourage anyone who enters the door to become engaged in the larger community. Just like the college communities whose multiple minyanim you mention, there is a benefit to having multiple services/events/groups under one roof with communal programming that tries to bring everyone together. Even with their problems, this is one place where I think synagogues are generally doing a better job than the indy minyanim.

I mean not really. You have to think like a true scholar about the situation. If it's not in the torah, then why should shuls be fixed. As it was once said, "follow after the many". "Lo bashamayim he". I do really like all of your comments and it definately provides alot of interesting discussion, but I just can't see this really happening.So many things would have to happen in order for these changes to become available. All jews can't be satisfied.That's how it works, you can't always get what you want. The torah would forbid such action. There are ways for us to become more of a commmunity without such action. Thank you Joshua, I really appreciate you starting this blogpost. It has really started to help me think about the Jews in the 21st century and the many problems we face as a kehila.